Identifying Statistical Bias in Dataset Replication

Dataset replication is a useful tool for assessing whether improvements in test accuracy on a specific benchmark correspond to improvements in models' ability to generalize reliably. In this work, we present unintuitive yet significant ways in which standard approaches to dataset replication introduce statistical bias, skewing the resulting observations. We study ImageNet-v2, a replication of the ImageNet dataset on which models exhibit a significant (11-14%) drop in accuracy, even after controlling for a standard human-in-the-loop measure of data quality. We show that after correcting for the identified statistical bias, only an estimated $3.6\% \pm 1.5\%$ of the original $11.7\% \pm 1.0\%$ accuracy drop remains unaccounted for. We conclude with concrete recommendations for recognizing and avoiding bias in dataset replication. Code for our study is publicly available at http://github.com/MadryLab/dataset-replication-analysis .

The Two Regimes of Deep Network Training

Learning rate schedule has a major impact on the performance of deep learning models. Still, the choice of a schedule is often heuristical. We aim to develop a precise understanding of the effects of different learning rate schedules and the appropriate way to select them. To this end, we isolate two distinct phases of training, the first, which we refer to as the "large-step" regime, exhibits a rather poor performance from an optimization point of view but is the primary contributor to model generalization; the latter, "small-step" regime exhibits much more "convex-like" optimization behavior but used in isolation produces models that generalize poorly. We find that by treating these regimes separately-and em specializing our training algorithm to each one of them, we can significantly simplify learning rate schedules.

On Adaptive Attacks to Adversarial Example Defenses

Adaptive attacks have (rightfully) become the de facto standard for evaluating defenses to adversarial examples. We find, however, that typical adaptive evaluations are incomplete. We demonstrate that thirteen defenses recently published at ICLR, ICML and NeurIPS---and chosen for illustrative and pedagogical purposes---can be circumvented despite attempting to perform evaluations using adaptive attacks. While prior evaluation papers focused mainly on the end result---showing that a defense was ineffective---this paper focuses on laying out the methodology and the approach necessary to perform an adaptive attack. We hope that these analyses will serve as guidance on how to properly perform adaptive attacks against defenses to adversarial examples, and thus will allow the community to make further progress in building more robust models.

Label-Consistent Backdoor Attacks

Deep neural networks have been demonstrated to be vulnerable to backdoor attacks. Specifically, by injecting a small number of maliciously constructed inputs into the training set, an adversary is able to plant a backdoor into the trained model. This backdoor can then be activated during inference by a backdoor trigger to fully control the model's behavior. While such attacks are very effective, they crucially rely on the adversary injecting arbitrary inputs that are---often blatantly---mislabeled. Such samples would raise suspicion upon human inspection, potentially revealing the attack. Thus, for backdoor attacks to remain undetected, it is crucial that they maintain label-consistency---the condition that injected inputs are consistent with their labels. In this work, we leverage adversarial perturbations and generative models to execute efficient, yet label-consistent, backdoor attacks. Our approach is based on injecting inputs that appear plausible, yet are hard to classify, hence causing the model to rely on the (easier-to-learn) backdoor trigger.

Computer Vision with a Single (Robust) Classifier

We show that the basic classification framework alone can be used to tackle some of the most challenging computer vision tasks. In contrast to other state-of-the-art approaches, the toolkit we develop is rather minimal: it uses a single, off-the-shelf classifier for all these tasks. The crux of our approach is that we train this classifier to be adversarially robust. It turns out that adversarial robustness is precisely what we need to directly manipulate salient features of the input. Overall, our findings demonstrate the utility of robustness in the broader machine learning context. Code and models for our experiments can be found at https://git.io/robust-apps.

Learning Perceptually-Aligned Representations via Adversarial Robustness

Many applications of machine learning require models that are human-aligned, i.e., that make decisions based on human-meaningful information about the input. We identify the pervasive brittleness of deep networks' learned representations as a fundamental barrier to attaining this goal. We then re-cast robust optimization as a tool for enforcing human priors on the features learned by deep neural networks. The resulting robust feature representations turn out to be significantly more aligned with human perception. We leverage these representations to perform input interpolation, feature manipulation, and sensitivity mapping, without any post-processing or human intervention after model training. Our code and models for reproducing these results is available at https://git.io/robust-reps.

Adversarial Examples Are Not Bugs, They Are Features

Adversarial examples have attracted significant attention in machine learning, but the reasons for their existence and pervasiveness remain unclear. We demonstrate that adversarial examples can be directly attributed to the presence of non-robust features: features derived from patterns in the data distribution that are highly predictive, yet brittle and incomprehensible to humans. After capturing these features within a theoretical framework, we establish their widespread existence in standard datasets. Finally, we present a simple setting where we can rigorously tie the phenomena we observe in practice to a misalignment between the (human-specified) notion of robustness and the inherent geometry of the data.

On Evaluating Adversarial Robustness

Correctly evaluating defenses against adversarial examples has proven to be extremely difficult. Despite the significant amount of recent work attempting to design defenses that withstand adaptive attacks, few have succeeded; most papers that propose defenses are quickly shown to be incorrect. We believe a large contributing factor is the difficulty of performing security evaluations. In this paper, we discuss the methodological foundations, review commonly accepted best practices, and suggest new methods for evaluating defenses to adversarial examples. We hope that both researchers developing defenses as well as readers and reviewers who wish to understand the completeness of an evaluation consider our advice in order to avoid common pitfalls.

Are Deep Policy Gradient Algorithms Truly Policy Gradient Algorithms?

We study how the behavior of deep policy gradient algorithms reflects the conceptual framework motivating their development. We propose a fine-grained analysis of state-of-the-art methods based on key aspects of this framework: gradient estimation, value prediction, optimization landscapes, and trust region enforcement. We find that from this perspective, the behavior of deep policy gradient algorithms often deviates from what their motivating framework would predict. Our analysis suggests first steps towards solidifying the foundations of these algorithms, and in particular indicates that we may need to move beyond the current benchmark-centric evaluation methodology.